The Abotech Affair: More leaks from inside Consulting and Audit Canada
More detailed information seems to leaking out from inside Consulting and Audit Canada. Is the information accurate? Some of it is. For the rest I can't say one way or another.
But it seemed so detailed and so damning that I'll post it -- you decide for yourself.
From an anonymous reader:
The KPMG forensic audit into affairs at the RCMP was just that: a forensic audit which found no criminal wrong-doing. Treasury Board policy states that all audits must be made public. So it is indeed curious that before the audit was finalized, the scope of the audit was changed to include management practices at CAC, for which Frank Brazeau is the only one being punished, as if he was the only guy responsible for management practices. And, has anyone noticed the audit is no longer an "audit"? Brison now calls it a "management review", presumably so he doesn't have to make the document public.
Isn't also curious that PWGSC deputy minister David Marshall has a close friend at the Globe and Mail - the reporter who "broke" this story without the KPMG report ever being made public? What gives? Why would the government leak this false story if it wasn't trying to deflect attention from itself?
And where is this Director General of Consulting? Did Bill McCann disappear? He was Brazeau's old boss. And where is the Director General of Corporate Services, Louis Vadeboncoeur? If I recall, these two guys were the ones who originally sent Brazeau home, with pay, without telling him why. [ed. I have independent knowledge of this meeting taking place] Now they apparently are on extended sick leave. What's the deal? Have they been punished too?
Makes you wonder why the government is going to such lengths to keep the truth buried. Is it because there really were funny things going on at CAC that the management endorsed? Were contracts given to companies or individuals linked to politicians? Wasn't there a story a few years back about Lansdowne Technologies, a company owned by Canada Steamship Lines (PM's company) receiving millions of dollars worth of contracts via CAC? [ed: I'll check this later today]
See, here's the problem: Brazeau did exactly what everyone else did at CAC, that is, help to identify skilled private sector resources for government clients. Why is this important? CAC was a fee-for-service special operating agency. It's livelihood depended on revenue from other departments. It charged for finding contractors, and also charged a mark-up on professional fees. For many years, it was in the red; therefore, management silently endorsed anything that would bring in revenues, including issuing contracts through dubious processes.
But, contracts can only be signed by those who have delegated authority. Brazeau did not have the delegated authority, so he never signed any contracts; he had no authority to do so (maybe McCann did and that's why he's "sick"). What Brazeau did was everything CAC management asked him to do, and he did it very well.
Meanwhile, The Gripe and Wail is spreading false information about Brazeau being a "contracting officer". This is simply not true. I guess the reporter didn't have time to check the material before printing it. Maybe if it's leaked from the deputy minister or from the minister, it doesn't need to be checked. Isn't there a word for that? Defamation? Slander?
You asked why it is that more people haven't come forward. I would suggest that those who are at CAC know that if this became public, they would really be in deep &@(* because their activities were way worse than anything Brazeau ever did.
But hey, shhhhh.... there's an election now and no one wants to embarass the governing party, right?
I have said before that I think the Abotech affair might be a smokescreen to hide from us from a more serious problem inside of CAC.
For what it's worth, both McCann and Vadeboncoeur are indeed on sick leave. In the case of Bill McCann, I noted that he never seem to have returned from his vacation, a vacation that happened at the same time as when Frank Brazeau was removed from the electronic government directory.
Maybe we can start getting some serious investigation going on what exactly is happening inside of Consulting and Audit Canada.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I see that Frank has other friends.....The Minister of PWGSC disbanded CAC on October 21st. Do you shut down a Government Agency because of 1 person? No way, you shut it down because of flawed management practices.
Posted by: at November 30, 2005 01:48 PM
Geez, the Globe and Mail, Poilievre, the Droit and now the West Quebec Post printing stories with incorrect information. Don't reporters verify their sources? What happens if the Ethics counsellor clears Smith? Are these people open to a lawsuit? Who knows. Brazeau DID NOT do anything wrong. I am glad people are coming forward to defend this guy.
Signed by a Socialist
Posted by: at November 30, 2005 02:08 PM
Socialist,
I have verified everything in that article, which accuses neither Brazeau nor Smith of anything.
It simply spells out the facts, which, taken as a whole, tend to indicate corruption. It looks bad, when an aboriginal company is run by a man who is either friends with, or a cousin of, a contact person for the program in charge of handing out cash to aboriginal companies.
I have printouts of all the government records, and spoke directly with Chief Whiteduck and David Smith, who refused to confirm or deny that he and Brazeau are cousins. It seems to me if they were not cousins, he would have immediately denied it.
I made no allegations in that article, I simply reported verified facts.
Don't forget that truth is a defense in a defamation lawsuit.
Posted by: JulieM at November 30, 2005 04:45 PM
Socialist, and all,
I see that the original government of Canada website calls him a "consultant," and I have passed along that information to my editor.
I very much suspect that the problem goes much deeper than Abotech.
Posted by: JulieM at November 30, 2005 05:08 PM
It looks bad when an aboriginal company is run by a man who is not an aboriginal as well. Angry and now Julie are on to something very juicy methinks.
Keep up the excellent work!!
Posted by: kelly at November 30, 2005 08:21 PM
Verified facts? Brazeau WAS NOT a contracts officer, the vast majority of the contracts were competitive. Brazeau was NOT sent home because of his links to Abotech, he was sent home because of the RCMP forensic audit. Again, none of the contracts were through the Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business and I don't give a crap if Smith is Aboriginal or not. I don`t know Smith and Brazeau NEVER handed out cash, that was not his role.
Brazeau was a Public Servant with the title of Consultant as everyone else on the consulting side of CAC were either Consultants, Senior Consultants, or Principal Consultants. You have a lot more homework to do.
Brison said he received good work and value from the firm, you think it's about Abotech? If Smith were not an MP, you NEVER would have heard of this story, NEVER. There are a lot of people wondering what this is about. Let me tell you, the reasons are not Abotech, Smith or Brazeau.
Posted by: at November 30, 2005 08:48 PM
From the Globe and Mail:
Frank Brazeau was a contracting officer at Consulting and Audit Canada whose performance came under the scrutiny of auditors at KPMG. In their recent report, the auditors raised allegations of irregularities in Mr. Brazeau's handling of contracts, finding a lack of documentation, backdating of contracts, manipulation of requests for proposals and irregular invoices.
Mr. Brazeau was initially suspended with pay, but he is no longer receiving a salary "pending further review," according to a senior federal official.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at November 30, 2005 09:00 PM
Brazeau could not do that, he had no authority. Wonder who the senior official is? Further review, does that mean they are doing another audit?
As my colleague as stated, the contracts were not passed through the set-aside program since there is no apparent history on MERX.
The relationship question, what if Brazeau is related to Smith? I know of many examples where a spouse of a CAC employee worked as a contractor and there was no conflict since the employee did not sign the contract. I don't think then that being 1st, 2nd, 3rd cousins or whatever else would then be considered a conflict.
I would be EXTREMELY careful in regards to Smith's ancestry (I don't know if he is or isn't). To be considered aboriginal, you have to be a Status Indian, Non-Status, Metis or Inuit and this is determined by the different organizations in this country. Because a former teacher and current chief says they are not part of the Band mean that the person is not aboriginal.
Socialist
Posted by: at November 30, 2005 11:32 PM
The issue of David Smith's aboriginal ancestry is an interesting one. It might be legit in that he followed the rules properly, if perhaps cynically. But if you are born on a farm surrounded by band lands, but you are not an aboriginal, if you grew up not being an aboriginal, then in your adult life you get that status and then use it to get money, meanwhile the aboriginals from your birthplace insist you are not an aboriginal, something doesn't seem right.
Canadian citizenship is determined by the Canadian government, not by the US, not by France, not by Uganda. Why is it that "citizenship" in First Nations is not defined by First Nations but by a "foreign" government, ie, the Canadian government?
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at December 1, 2005 07:38 AM
Verified facts? Brazeau WAS NOT a contracts officer, the vast majority of the contracts were competitive. Brazeau was NOT sent home because of his links to Abotech, he was sent home because of the RCMP forensic audit. Again, none of the contracts were through the Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business and I don't give a crap if Smith is Aboriginal or not. I don`t know Smith and Brazeau NEVER handed out cash, that was not his role.
So give me something to go on. Something that verifies your story. Send me a scan of a document, minutes of a meeting, a name and a place and an event that I can cross reference from another source that supports what you're saying. Right now all I have a compelling story from an anonymous IP address.
On the other side of the ledger I have David Smith an aboriginal of questionable status linked to a company Abotech listed in the aboriginal directory sharing a fax number with a former non-aboriginal employer named as a cousin of Brazeau by a *named* source. Brazeau in turn was clearly punished for something by CAC where he definitely worked on contracts in some capacity and where he definitely reported on compliance with PSAB.
I've already reported my suspicions about the RCMP contract and my thoughts that the Abotech affair might be a distraction to keep eyes away from the RCMP thing. But besides my own suspicions, I got nothing on the RCMP side.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at December 1, 2005 07:46 AM
All I know is that once the Ethics Counsellor makes his decision one way or the other, the truth will come out.
Posted by: at December 1, 2005 08:27 AM
...It's livelihood depended on revenue from other departments. It charged for finding contractors, and also charged a mark-up on professional fees. For many years, it was in the red; therefore, management silently endorsed anything that would bring in revenues...
So how does a non-profit, support centre start 'bringing in revenues'?
I would think it would have to either charge higher 'fees' or increase it's mark-up, or maybe have the contractors pay some kind of special administration/referral fee. Ultimately, you just know that those revenues are at the expense of the taxpayer.
And I wonder if CAC management & staff were then rewarded with 'performance bonuses' for no longer operating in the red?
Posted by: JM at December 1, 2005 02:52 PM
CAC executives, who are eligible for performance pay, were certainly handsomely rewarded. A DG can earn up to 15% of his base salary in performance pay (top end of the EX-3 DG salary is $135k, so 15% is over $20k!!). That's pretty good coinage... and incentive for silently endorsing
- contract splitting;
- rolling over $25k contracts to avoid competitive processes;
- awarding contracts to spouses of fellow CAC colleagues...
This information is all available through Access to Information. Put in an access request for all contracts given to Lansdowne Technologies since 1991, for example. Tell me if THAT doesn't look fishy.
While you're at it, put in an access request for all correspondence, meeting minutes, agendas, notes, statements of work, etc., related to Frank Brazeau's being sent home. Assuming those documents haven't been shredded yet.
Oh, and you know how much KPMG was paid for this work that, for all intents and purposes, is full of mis-information?
$1.4M
Someone should ask CAC to confirm that (or do it via Access to Information).
Posted by: at December 1, 2005 04:12 PM
“...CAC executives, who are eligible for performance pay, were certainly handsomely rewarded...”
Of course they were. And they were in good company.
http://www.johnwilliams.ca/news/wastereportperfpay.pdf
That positive cash flow on CAC’s financial statements probably looks pretty good if you don’t look too closely & figure out that those extra revenues are probably being paid by the taxpayer.
“....rolling over $25k contracts to avoid competitive processes....”
And how many of those $25,000 contracts ended up being rolled over until they reached $50,000, $75,000, $100,000....? And the rationale for issuing 2, 3, or more contracts vs one? It’s certainly more convenient & quicker having 1 or 2 managers affix their signature on a $25,000 contract vs maybe getting 4, 5 or more signatures on a $100,000 contract. That takes way too long! But more importantly it also minimizes the number of managers who may start questioning some of the contracts which are processed.
“....awarding contracts to spouses of fellow CAC colleagues...”
Of course this little secret can easily be hidden by making sure that the spouse submits all contracts under the guise of operating as a legitimate, established ‘company’. And if you’re French-Canadian it’s probably even easier to keep this hidden because don't women continue using their maiden names.
"...Lansdowne Technologies..." My guess...it's probably operated by former and/or retired government employees.
Posted by: JM at December 1, 2005 05:53 PM
Lansdowne Technologies is and was operated by former CAC employees.
Posted by: at December 2, 2005 11:25 AM
"....Lansdowne Technologies is and was operated by former CAC employees..."
I recall reading about this before:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover020305.htm
Posted by: JM at December 2, 2005 01:18 PM
 
|
|
